The Role of the Architect in Sustainable Housing ...ISS 1 2019 THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT IN...

The Role of the Architect in Sustainable Housing Transformation.Four Swedish Case Studies.

Downloaded from: https://research.chalmers.se, 2020-07-01 08:50 UTC

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):Femenias, P. (2019)The Role of the Architect in Sustainable Housing Transformation. Four Swedish Case Studies.Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 31(1): 113-136

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

research.chalmers.se offers the possibility of retrieving research publications produced at Chalmers University of Technology.It covers all kind of research output: articles, dissertations, conference papers, reports etc. since 2004.research.chalmers.se is administrated and maintained by Chalmers Library

(article starts on next page)

ISSUE 1 2019 113

THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT IN SUSTAINABLE HOUSING TRANSFORMATION: FOUR SWEDISH CASES STUDIES

PAULA FEMENÍAS

Keywords:

sustainable renovation,

architectural knowledge,

integrated design, holistic

perspectives, public housing

Abstract Sustainable housing renovation is often connected to broader transfor-

mation processes and a need of holistic approaches to deal with social,

environmental and economic development. Architectural knowledge

has been described as uniquely positioned to handle complex real-world

problems by dealing with sustainability from a whole-systems perspec-

tive. In this paper, the role of the architect and the influence of archi-

tectural knowledge are explored in four cases of public housing reno-

vation. The results show that most of the architects experience limited

influence. The division of longer transformations into shorter projects

under the direction of a series of architects rather than a single firm is a

limiting factor, and public procurement another. Good experience is also

reported from integrated design, suggesting that architects could play

a productive role as educators of the design team. In order to fulfil that

role, the architects might need to review their approach to sustainable

renovation.

ISSUE 1 2019 THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT IN SUSTAINABLE HOUSING TRANSFORMATION: FOUR SWEDISH CASES STUDIES PAULA FEMENÍAS 114

1 IntroductionRenewal of existing housing areas is a great challenge for contempo-

rary society, but also an opportunity to create more sustainable futures.

Reno vation provides opportunities to reduce energy use and contribute

to the decarbonisation of the built environment, but also to improve the

indoor climate and thermal comfort in dwellings (Kylili, Fokaides and

Lopez Jimenez, 2016). Housing renewal is also discussed as a means to

support broader social and economic regeneration of neighbourhoods

(Smith, 2006; Turcu, 2012a). Modernisation and technical renovation have

been seen as an opportunity for addressing both energy efficiency and

social development in socio-economically vulnerable areas.

It is generally understood that creating sustainable built environments

requires comprehensive and holistic approaches. A separation of design

functions and processes often means missed opportunities to optimise

the whole built environment system for best performance (Janda, 2011;

Du Plessis, 2012). Objectives for sustainable renovation address social,

environmental, economic and cultural aspects at the same time. This ho-

listic view is reflected in the recent development of tools and process

models to guide more sustainable renovation (Nielsen, et al., 2016; Sharifi

and Murayama, 2013). Objectives for sustainable renovation originate in

different knowledge fields, are attributed to different stakeholders or

value perspectives, are often interconnected and are at times conflictu-

al. The implementation of sustainable renovation will include a process

in which different objects are weighed or balanced against each other.

The aim of this paper is to reflect upon the role of architectural knowledge

in sustainable renovation. Architectural knowledge has within its

own discipline been defined as having a unique place in handling

contemporary complex real world problems (Fischer, 2000; Doucet and

Janssens, 2011). Designers are trained to make judgements among a

multitude of objectives, and to take decisions at times without complete

information or knowledge of the actual sustainable outcomes of these

decisions (Wahl and Baxter, 2008). Some authors also state that the

architect could take a leading role in managing sustainable building

processes (Rekola, Mäkeläinen and Häkkinen, 2012) or as an educator

of the design team with respect to whole-systems perspectives (Janda,

2011). While there is a growing understanding of the necessity to link

behavioural studies to environmental research (Sovacool, et al., 2015),

the role and potential contribution of architectural knowledge in these

processes is still under-researched.

This paper is based on four Swedish cases of the renovation of hous-

ing areas with pronounced ambitions for sustainability. It investigates

the role and influence of the architects in these processes. The research

questions regard factors that have framed the role and influence of the

architect and their relation to sustainable results, and the architects’

approach and working methods in sustainable renovation.


The four cases are large housing estates built in the early era of industri-

alised construction, known in Sweden as the “million homes programme”

– a political programme to build a million new homes between 1965 and

1975. The large number of these buildings, combined with their relatively

high energy use and the need for renovation, has focused attention on

this segment of the housing stock for national debates on energy effi-

ciency and renovation. An observation that sparked my curiosity and led

to this study is that even with sustainable renovation projects that have

been well covered in the media, the architect remains unknown.

2 Sustainable housing renovationThe principles and models for sustainable renovation propose a broad

range of objectives, including environmental protection, resource con-

servation, affordability, community diversity, access to jobs, pride and

sense of community, well-being, awakening awareness about sustain-

able behaviour, community involvement and governance (Stenberg, Thu-

vander and FemenÍas, 2009; Turcu, 2012b; Nielsen, et al., 2016). There is no

universally accepted set of objectives; the objectives will vary depending

on the location and character of the project (Turcu, 2012a).

The varied objectives are interconnected and implementing them can be

problematic. In many cases there will be a trade-off when realising the

objectives. Lind and Lundström (2008) found that a sustainable renova-

tion project can contribute to lowered crime rates and improved health.

However, such positive social development can also be attributed in part

to the emigration of vulnerable households to other areas as a result of

the renovation (Borelius and Wennerström, 2009; Stenberg, Thuvander

and FemenÍas, 2009; Bråmå, 2011). Another link is found between environ-

mental objectives and social aspects of behaviour. For example, positive

results from energy saving investments will be dependent on user be-

haviour. Long-term results of energy saving and waste separation will be

dependent on efforts among staff operating the system, but also on the

continuous information to new and remaining residents about resource

conservation (Stenberg, Thuvander and FemenÍas, 2009).

The objectives for energy efficiency and social welfare are an area of con-

flict, especially in the absence of public resources. Current national and

European policy propose energy efficiency through renovation but the

responsibility for costs is not clear. Attempts to transfer energy renova-

tion costs to tenants has led to conflicts between property owners and

tenants (Ástmarsson, Jensen and Maslesa, 2013). The problem is espe-

cially delicate because large needs for energy retrofitting correspond to

those areas with the most socially vulnerable residents (Mangold, et al.,

2016). A national debate on the larger societal effects of what has been

called “renoviction” – when tenants are forced to move due to rent in-

creases from renovation (Molina and Westin, 2012) – has led to changed


political directives. At present, public housing owners value social am-

bition over investment in energy efficiency (Thuvander, FemenÍas and

Brunkluas, 2017).

2.1 Participation and integrated processes

The renovation process can roughly be divided, in the same way as

the design of a new building, into pre-design, design, construction and

operation. What differs in renovation is the greater importance attached

to the pre-design inventory phase, when information is collected about

the existing structure, its performance and residents (Thuvander, et al.,

2012).

In order to handle the multitude of objectives in sustainable renovation,

an increasing number of tools and methods propose a multi-criteria

assessment that includes social and cultural aspects (Nielsen, et al.,

2016). However, due to the complexity, not least with regards to long-

term social implications, these assessments might have more validity

for technical and economic guidance. Sustainability assessments have

the disadvantage of only presenting a snap-shot evaluation of the

outcome, and they are often made in the design phase, while it might

not be possible to evaluate the real sustainability of investments until

the building has been in use for several years (Turcu, 2012a).

More collaboration among the various actors and fields of expertise dur-

ing the design process has been highlighted as a way to achieve more

sustainable renovation (Thuvander, FemenÍas and Meiling, 2011). Sus-

tainable integrated design, or whole-system design, defines processes

through which all professional actors and expertise areas work togeth-

er, preferably from the start and throughout the whole design process

(Cole, 2004; Charnley, Lemon and Evans, 2011). Round-table discussion

will facilitate the exchange of knowledge and contribute to a design

driven by a shared, comprehensive vision. It has also been proposed to

widen that circle to include not only those professional actors normally

involved in the design team, but also users and management staff (Kaatz,

Root and Bowen, 2005).

Democracy and participation is one of the pillars of sustainable

development (WCED, 1987). The participation of the residents in planning,

and also in the continued governance and management of the areas,

has been extoled as paramount for reaching long-term objectives for

sustainable regeneration (Smith, 2006; Turcu, 2012a; Stenberg, Thuvander

and FemenÍas, 2009). Resident participation has been emphasised from a

management perspective as well, though on more operational grounds.

Participation has been emphasised with respect to the value of the local

knowledge that residents can bring to the project, and to the value of

developing shared visions and creating legitimacy to ensure a smoother

transformation process (Marthur, Price and Austin, 2008). In Sweden,


tenant involvement in the planning of renovation has a history that

dates back to the 1980s. At present, consent is needed by each tenant

if the renovation project affects the standard of the dwellings enough

to result in a rent increase. However, the tenants’ lack of real influence

on decisions in renovation has been criticised (Stenberg, 2015).

Traditionally, public property managers have been reluctant to include

their tenants in decision-making (Femenías, Gluch and Mjörnell, 2017).

They are consulted only in the later phases, after most decisions have

already been taken, if they are consulted at all. Their objections are often

overruled with reference to the owner’s mandate to secure the security

and value of their property.

2.2 The role of the architect in sustainable design

The introduction of participative and collaborative approaches to deal

with sustainable design will face several challenges in contemporary

building practice (Charnley, Lemon and Evans, 2011). Discrepancies

among professional discourses, cultures and agendas, and the delete-

rious influence those discrepancies have on communication, has been

identified as one of the most significant barriers to the realisation of

more sustainable building practices (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). For

generations, building professionals have prepared themselves to solve

complex problems by becoming increasingly specialised. Building proj-

ects involve a large and growing number of specialised building pro-

fessionals, and the building process has been likened to a relay race in

which actors and phases independently relieve one another. In addition,

roles in the organisation of a building project are highly institution-

alised, which can build up barriers between cultures and power struc-

tures and impede the sharing of knowledge (Kadefors, 1997). Resistance

can also build up against new procedures that threaten old power struc-

tures and knowledge domains (Gluch, Gustavsson and Thuvander, 2009).

Furthermore, most professionals in the building sector are not trained to

handle tasks of a social nature (Dainty, Cheng and Moore, 2005), and such

training would be advantageous when engaging with user participation

in processes.

There is no clear consensus on the management of more integrated

design processes and the role of the architect in these. Rekola,

Mäkeläinen and Häkkinen (2012) emphasise the statuary role of a chief

architect as manager of sustainable building projects. Charnley, Lemon

and Evans (2011) instead see the value of a facilitator and emphasise the

dynamics of a flattened hierarchy for whole-system design to encourage

joint ownership and democratic governance. Stanislas, Gavin and Janda

(2011) argue that there might be room for new professional actors or

that existing actors might need to expand their customary roles to meet

demands for transitions to more sustainable practices, for example in

the field of whole-system integration.


The possibility for a statuary role of a chief architect will be challenged by

an emerging variety of procurement routes (Tzortzopoulos and Cooper,

2007). In design-build contracts and project delivery, responsibility for the

management of the design falls to the principle contractor rather than

the architect as it would in more traditional forms of contracts (Mills and

Glass, 2009). Tzortzopoulos and Cooper (2007) emphasise the contractors’

lack of appropriate understanding, skills and knowledge, which can

impede the efficient management of the design process. In Sweden, the

number of design-build contracts is increasing, especially in projects

that are considered routine, such as housing production (Bougrain and

Femenías, 2014). The same situation is reported in the United Kingdom

(Tzortzopoulos and Cooper, 2007). Dewick and Miozzo (2004) found a

preference for traditional over design-build contracts among architects

and consultants for achieving more sustainable results. In contrast, it

was found that contractors prefer alternative contracting forms, with the

motivation that these contracts could support their early involvement in

the design process.

Charnley, Lemon and Evans (2011) state that one of the biggest chal-

lenges for integrated or whole-system design is to encourage the team

members to view the bigger picture and think holistically. The ability of

the team to initiate processes of cross-discipline learning and awaken

curiosity will be crucial for the successful outcome. Janda (2011) argues

for the architects to take on the role of educators of the sustainable de-

sign team given their ability to think holistically and their understand-

ing of the social aspects of shaping the built environment. However, real-

ity might prove different. Palm and Reindl (2016) report from a Swedish

sustainable renovation project that the architects felt they had limited

influence on decisions, and that the design process was dominated by

technical issues and technical consultants.

3 MethodologyA case study methodology was chosen and seven in-depth semi-struc-

tured interviews with seven architects involved in four cases of renova-

tion were carried out. Interviews were also conducted with representa-

tives from the property owners, and in some cases a few other key actors.

Table 1 gives a short presentation of the case study areas, designated A, B,

C and D, and of the interviewees. The four areas are owned and managed

by four different locally operating semi-public clients – that is, munici-

pally owned housing companies. Swedish municipal housing companies

operate on a commercial basis at the same time as they are expected to

fulfil the social responsibilities of providing local housing.

In total 18 semi-structured interviews were carried out between 2001 and

2015. A few actors have been interviewed on more than one occasion. The

interviews lasted between one and two hours, and were recorded and


transcribed. The interview guides have varied over time. Early interviews

searched for a more general understanding of the challenges for holistic

sustainable housing transformation. Questions were also asked about

the importance of human and economic resources, tools and pro ject

team collaboration. The later interviews, from 2015, have more speci-

fically focused on the architect. Questions were asked about the role and

influence of the architect and their methods of working with renovation,

as well as how they deal with the values they find in the existing built

environment.

In addition to the interviews, a broader understanding of the cases has

been supported by on-site observations, documents from the processes,

other studies and reports, and information from the Internet. The cases

and the interviewees have been anonymised out of respect for the

interviewees even though some of the cases are well known and could

be traced.

The study does not aim to make universally applicable generalisations

and the cases have not been randomly selected. Instead a selection

has been made of renovation projects with pronounced ambitions to

achieve sustainability in terms of environmental and social develop-

ment. The selection of cases has also been based on the expectations of

the information that could be retrieved (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In some sense,

cases A, C and to some extent B could be seen as extreme cases consider-

ing they were demonstration or pilot projects that were assigned extra

financial resources from the city or the European Union.

With reference to the great importance of the residents in housing

renovation, the fact that the residents’ views have not been captured

could be seen as a limitation of this study. It is an unfortunate reality

of contemporary housing renovation that post-renovation feedback

studies are seldom carried out (Thuvander, FemenÍas and Brunkluas,

2017). The landlords have also been reluctant to give the researchers

permission to discuss directly with tenants in connection to on-going

renovation projects.


4 Case studies

4.1 Case A: A solar energy project

Case A is a high-profile renovation of a larger housing estate that bat-

tled social exclusion and vacancy in the 1990s. A first renovation project

in the late 1990s, often referred to as the Solar Houses, was the start-

ing point for the broader transformation of the whole area that is still

on-going. The project has been renowned for combining energy efficien-

cy and solar energy with a social development of the area. Successful

results include reduced energy and water use as well as reduced crime

rates and improved well-being (Lind and Lundström, 2008). The increased

attractiveness of the area can also be seen in an increase in investments

in new housing. Furthermore, the municipal housing owner has been a

pioneer in the use of social procurement and employment of a local

workforce. In an attempt to support local decision-making, residents

have been elected to be part of the steering board of the housing com-

pany, positions normally held only by local politicians. However, some

Table 1

Short presentation of the case study areas, their renovations and the interviewees.

Short description Renovation Interviewees

Case A 1000 apartments built 1969–72.

5-storey blocks with deck

access, and 3-level slab build-

ings are arranged around square

courtyards.

A first phase with approx. 250

apartments renovated 1999–

2001. The area has since been

subject to recurring renovation

and improvements.

Architect A1 (2001; 2008, 2015)

CEO of property owner (2008);

District manager (2008); Energy

researcher/consultant (2008)

Case B 1600 apartments built 1969–72.

Lower 4-storey blocks surround-

ing courtyards, others of 4–6

stories with a single staircase,

and a few blocks of 8–9 stories

with several staircases.

A first phase was carried out in

2001. The renovation process

is still on-going. Different

renovation strategies are used.

Some blocks are going through

deep renovation to reach high

energy efficiency.

Architect A2 (2015); Architect A3

(2015); Architect A4 (2015)

District manager (2008; 2015);

Project leader (2008)

Case C 300 apartments built 1971–73 in

4-storey blocks around court-

yards.

Renovated 2007–14 with high

ambitions for energy efficiency

and focus on accessibility.

Architect A5 (2008; 2015); Archi-

tect A6 (2015)

CEO of property owner (2008;

2015); Passive house architect

(2008)

Case

D

740 apartments built 1968–71

in 2- and 3-storey blocks, some

with deck access.

A first phase was renovated

2009–13. A second phase will

start 2017.

Architect A7 (2013; 2015)

Information manager (2013) and

“neighbourhood host” (2013;

2017), both employees at the

property owner


critical voices claim that social development has been gained at the

expense and exclusion of socially vulnerable households (Borelius and

Wennerström, 2009).

4.1.1 The architect’s role and influence

The office of Architect A1 was one of the initiators of the Solar Houses

project. It is a small office with extensive experience working with sus-

tainability, solar energy and renovation. The firm says they are in general

very engaged in their projects. Work is not just a task that needs to be

solved – “that is not our style”. They often take the lead in order to influ-

ence the outcome. One important factor is the principal architect’s tech-

nical knowledge: he is in fact an inventor of both passive and active solar

technology systems. This has been crucial for their influence in projects.

“If you have knowledge you can influence a lot.” They have also imposed

in some projects their own choice of collaborators, for example a con-

tractor that they could co-operate with.

In the Solar House project as well as a number of other demonstration

projects they have engaged in, they have also brought finances to the

project from research programmes:

When it comes to the process, we were very lucky because we initiated

a project. We applied to the European Community for funding for an

energy-efficient and healthy, sustainable renovation. We brought mon-

ey into the project, and because of that we could set our rules. Actu-

ally we could say, “We get the money, but we want to do this and this”,

and then we collaborated with academia, and we had plenty of time to

think. We had time to do feasibility studies. We could compare energy

concepts, costs…. We had time – that was very important.

The office recognises the value of having a “good” client with social am-

bitions in reaching their goals for a project. When developing the Solar

Houses, they had problems convincing the client to make social invest-

ments. For example, their idea to build greenhouses as social meeting

places met with doubt. They proposed the greenhouses based on experi-

ence from an earlier project in which a greenhouse attached to a public

housing block contributed greatly to the satisfaction among tenants,

resulting in social stability through reduced tenant turnover. But the

Solar Houses client saw the greenhouses as unnecessary costs and was

not something the residents explicitly asked for.

4.1.2 Approach and working methods

Regarding the working methods and tools for sustainable renovation,

Architect 1 first mentions 3D modelling which they use in all their reno-

vation projects. It is a good way of communicating ideas and visions to

all stakeholders and actors that do not have a good understanding of

drawings.


When taking on a renovation project they begin by informing themselves

about the area and its qualities. They search for drawings and photo-

graphs in archives, but also for detailed information that the property

owner might possess about the specific construction. They also walk

the site to inventory qualities using camera and notebook. They find

it important to invest in functional architecture rather than “cosmetic

architecture”, which is not very sustainable. They are proud that they

were able to keep the original art in the Solar Houses area:

Oh, this is typical from the age when the building was constructed.

What is worth keeping, what is the soul of the building, the main im-

portant architectural elements to keep. […] We do not use any special

equipment – we take photos, we write down what is worth keeping,

but we also think a lot, “We could change it into this”. We see oppor-

tunities.

The office has its own process outline for projects in general. It is used to

communicating with clients and collaborators “to get everyone working

the way we want”. The process starts with the architect, but collabora-

tion among all the other actors is paramount: “If you all work together,

you get the best results”. Depending on the character of the project they

engage outside experts, like engineers for energy calculations or build-

ing conservators. They also use certification methods like BREAAM.

One strategy is to give a lecture early on in the project to all involved, and

to illustrate their intentions with images and photographs. It is a way

to make the project group understand their intentions and to give them

inspiration. “You have a dream and then you want to communicate that

Figure 1

Case A. An original statue (left); the

low- and mid-rise buildings (middle);

and high-rise with solar panels on the

roof and glazed balconies (right). No

pictures are available from before the

renovation. PHOTO: P. FEMENÍAS.

dream with the clients.” Architect 1 emphasises the fact that they own

the process but not the final results. Once the project is finished, it is

everyone’s to use.

The firm prefers to have direct contact with the residents in renovation

projects. They were disappointed that their contact with the residents

in this specific project was orchestrated by a local representative of the

property owner.


4.2 Case B: An area with mixed strategies

This large housing estate has been in the process of renovation since

the early 2000s, and the municipal owner is expecting it to take another

30 years before the process is completed. The renovation is connected

to a larger transformation process that includes densification in order

to complement the homogeneity of the area in terms of tenure form

and dwelling type. The leading vision has been about “identity” and

“orientation”, and the municipal housing company has deliberately

engaged different architects in order to create this variation. Architect A2

has been working with the area since the early 2000s to develop a design

strategy for the area as a whole, and also as the architect of three separate

renovation projects. The two first projects they were involved with focused

on internal modernisation and attractive architecture without striving

for energy savings. In 2008, Architect 2 was engaged in a high-profile

pilot project in the area – the energy-efficient renovation of a small tower

block and the follow-up projects of that pilot. The energy renovation was

successful but expensive, and led to high rent increases in these blocks.

Architect A3 was involved in the second phase of the renovation and

Architect A4 in a recent phase. The projects involving Architect A3 and

A4 aimed at limiting the rent increases, and consequently energy-saving

investments were not prioritised. What was important instead was to

create a new architecture and image for the area, as expressed by the

District manager at the municipal company:

We do not want to have the same again because we thought it was

kind of boring, the area, before. Grey, grey, grey – everything was the

same. That’s why we have different architects, and several phases,

since we don’t want to rebuild it all again in the same style. That’s why

we’re taking it step by step.

4.2.1 The architects’ role and influence

Architect A2 has a long history of working with the same municipal housing

company, although she has been employed at different architecture

firms during this time. She experienced a good relationship with the

client built on trust. She found the client to be caring and ambitious.

Architect A2 thinks that having a long-term vision of the transformation

is really important: “Every building, or development, should have a more

long-term idea.” Without that bearing idea, the architect begins work

on one part of the project without knowing what will happen on the

next, and whether the ideas in the different phases will fit together. For

example, once the windows are replaced, they’ll have to be incorporated

into later façade designs.

Architect A2 found her involvement in the energy pilot project to be in-

teresting and creative. The project was a design-build contract in which

all actors, consultants, researchers and the contractor worked together


from the early phases as a team. It was a creative process in which every-

body could contribute their particular knowledge, but the architect sus-

pects that it might have been an expensive procedure.

Architect A3 works at a larger architect office with over 125 employees.

She says that they always try to do something even if the budget is con-

strained – constrained budgets force the architect to “do it very quickly

and very efficiently”. In this project, the client was perceived to be very

engaged. Compared to new construction, renovation demands that she

really intervene with people, “So it’s a more interesting way of working”.

Architect A3 thinks that the client had a good relationship with the ten-

ants and listened to them; however, she did not have any direct contact

with the tenants herself, either in this project or in other similar projects.

Architect A4 has special expertise and long experience of working with

renovation. She thinks that the communication and trust among the

actors is the most important contributing factor in a good renovation

project. In this project, she was happy about the good relationship with

the contractor. Even though it was a design-build contract she was

involved in the detailed planning and design of the renovation, which is

not always the case:

That was an ideal situation. If the contractor lets you in, into the discus-

sion, then it’s more exiting – you can improvise, together with them.

And you learn a lot about how they make decisions and what it costs,

what they want to do. So, it’s good for both. You’re not this mysterious

person that comes and goes, and you get a real person to talk to, which

is very nice.

Architect A4 says that the owner did not allow her to have any direct

relationship with the tenants, although she thinks that architects are

specifi cally trained to talk to people. On the whole, she thinks that the

clients listen too much to the technical consultants and accept their cost

estimates, while questions about architecture that would lift the whole

area have much less legitimacy in the process. She further points to

what she calls a new actor in the renovation process, the project leader.

They are technical consultants, and she believes they take some of the

architect’s work, becoming an intermediary between the project, the

client and the architect. This is a worrying situation and she feels that

they are taking over the architect’s role. There will also be a concurrence

about resources among all the involved actors. She thinks one solution

would be for architects to take on the role as project leaders: “I think

more architects should go into the steering process. You have more

access to the leaders then, the ones who do the calculations, but it is

hard to get inside”.



Architect A2 says that before developing a strategy for the renovation,

they studied how people move in the area, and mapped activities. From

that they defined three main geographical areas and gave them new

names as a starting point to the transformation. She thinks that the best

method in working with renovation is to listen to everybody: “Go there

and develop your own idea of the area”. You have to have all the informa-

tion, she believes – all the facts, how much money there is, the standard

of renovation they’re aiming for, and then you can try to suggest a good

solution:

I think to work as an architect, you have to be a good detective, take

everything in and generate something good out of it. I think that is ex-

citing as well, to take in problems and make something better.

Figure 2

Case B before (left) with sea-stone

facades and after (middle) renovation

of phase two. The sea-stone façade was

painted pale green to make it more

attractive, a solution that has not aged

well. To the right, the red pilot project

with high energy saving and the colour-

ed balconies from a recent phase of the

renovation.

PHOTO: P. FEMENÍAS.

The staff at Architect A3 takes pictures and consults existing drawings.

The office has in-house experts on sustainability and energy. If necessary

they bring in external consultants, such as a building conservator. They

use what they call a process map, which includes all stakeholders and

a timeline, as a way to sort things out and understand different angles

that need to be considered when taking decisions.

Architect A4 also mainly uses original drawings and photos along with

observations from the site to approach the project. In this specific case,

she had a vision of re-creating some of the qualities of Swedish architec-

ture from the 1950s. She used a darker shade at the base of the façade

and a lighter shade on the upper floors. The balconies have glass fronts

in different bright colours to make the area more attractive, actually the

result of a dream she had. She did not take the design strategy created

by Architect A2 for the area seriously – she thought it was a bit out-dated,

proposing for example older technology for outdoor lighting.

4.3 Case C: Demonstrating energy saving renovation

Case C has the smallest number of apartments in the study but is inter-

nationally known due to its successful implementation of energy con-

servation and the involvement in European projects. The area is located

in a small city and is owned by the local municipal housing company. The


project started off with a pilot project and a concept, which was then

evaluated, adjusted and implemented across the entire area. The project

has been carried out in partnering with a contractor.

The project has been driven by the ambition to do a “passive house” reno-

vation and to reduce the operating energy consumption by as much as

60%. The concept was developed in collaboration with a local expert and

founder of the Swedish Passive House Centre. The CEO of the company

also had strong social ambitions, including greater accessibility for

people with reduced mobility, which she sees as a future-proofing of

the area with regard to an aging population. The motivation for the

high cost of the project is that it will save money in the long run for the

municipality. The company intended not to raise the rent levels, though

ultimately it could not be avoided.


No less than three architects have been involved in the project. The

municipal company had a long-time contract with Architect A5, now

replaced after her retirement. Her work was the long-term planning of

the local housing stock through inventories of qualities and problems in

each housing area. Architect A6 was hired to do the design for the pilot

renovation project and two of the following blocks. In the later phases

she was replaced by another office to complete the building permit

plans.

Architect A5 calls herself a “program architect”. She worked in parallel

with Architect A6 and the last involved office throughout the entire pro-

cess as a representative for the client. She believes that her mission was

to ensure good function and architecture “so we got nice buildings”. She

was also an expert in design for accessibility. Architect A5 says that the

authorship of the renovation is a bit tricky to ascribe due to the number

of architects involved.

Architect A6 has special expertise in sustainability and was specifically

engaged for the passive house design. However, a technical consult-

ing company produced the detailed technical drawings and took legal

responsibility for their correctness. Architect A6 mentions that she was

especially happy about the good relationship with contractor. She found

that they had could have an open dialogue about solutions: the contrac-

tor listened and understood. After the first blocks were realised, the cli-

ent replaced Architect A6 with another office to “copy and paste” her

design.

There has been some tension between Architect 6 and Architect 5 in the

design process. Architect A6’s impression is that the CEO of the municipal

company listened more to Architect 5. The CEO recalls the initial design

for the pilot project. At one point, she realised that the project was too


focused on energy saving: “That was not good because that is only one

focus”. The CEO had “fourteen sleepless nights” before engaging Archi-

tect 5 to ensure that original qualities of the area were safeguarded. This

led to a re-design of the balconies, entrances and other features. As part

of the passive house concept, the original balconies were to be incor-

porated into the interior of the apartments and new external balconies

were to be added. Architect 6 had proposed a modern design. Architect

5, having listened to a tenant group, managed to convince the CEO that

they should recreate a quality found in the original balconies: a concrete

wall that separated neighbouring balconies for privacy (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Case C before the renovation (left) and

after (middle and right), showing the

final design of the balconies.



Architect A5 says that she works a lot with photos during her the early

inventory of the site. She does not work with any specific method or tool

for sustainability. Instead she uses simple guidebooks for accessibility.

The CEO had told her to use the company’s own method for renovation,

called “renewal planning”. This checklist method defines steps in the ren-

ovation process and four questions to investigate in the early phases:

What are the specific qualities of the site? What is the soul of the area?

What could be improved? How should we work to preserve and enhance

these qualities and remedy the flaws?

Architect A6 finds that descriptions, characterisations and photos of

qualities are important tools. She makes thorough inventories on the

site, noting wind, sunlight, greenery, water, traffic etc. Characterisation

of the site can also be a good way to communicate with the other actors

involved:

I remember a very early meeting when I first had this idea with colours

and entrances. I made some sort of characterisation of the existing

buildings talking about horizontal and vertical aspects. The [contrac-

tor] said they had never thought about that, and would try to fulfil

what I’d said. That was very interesting to hear. […] So how the building

is treated at the ground and at the roof, that you can see as an archi-

tect.

Architect A6 welcomes communication with the tenants but thinks that

they can’t always be involved directly in the design: “We must have quite


strict procedures, so we don’t get everyone calling to say, ‘I don’t like

those balconies’”.

4.4 Case D: Caring for existing qualities

Case D is the most recent in the study. It is located in a smaller munici-

pality outside a larger city. The municipal owner decided to focus on an

external renovation with very limited rent increases. The energy-saving

measures were limited to a partial insulation of the facades, new insu-

lated roofs and photovoltaic panels installed on the roofs. A first phase

was carried out around 2010 and a second is under development now.

Since the renovation, the owner has noted increased demand for rental

contracts in the area.

Early on the owner developed a vision for the area that specifically

stated the ambition to safeguard its architectural and historical quali-

ties. Architect A7, who was contracted for both phases of the renovation,

has worked carefully to replace some parts of the façade and repair and

preserve others such as the Danish sea-stone elements. The first phase

of the project was nominated for a prestigious heritage prize, which is

exceptional for a renovation of one of these mass-produced housing

projects.


Architect A7 says that he and his colleagues would not take on a project

if the client did not accept their way of working. In their office, the work-

ing method is based on inclusion – everybody is involved in all kinds of

projects, rather than having specialists in certain areas. In the case of

renovation, they want people with local knowledge to be included in the

project as a kind of a reference group:

In the first phase, we try together to see what we have, what are the

qualities, the landscape, the geography, the public space, the yards,

the semi-public space, and also try to tell a story about this area, how it

is situated, what we see together with the users. […] So the first phase

is really to engage people in the process, and inform everybody how it

should progress.

In the dialogue with this reference group, the architect does not show

any designs. Instead they initiate a dialogue about qualities and prob-

lems. Their idea is that if people can relate a discussion to a final result,

“they can feel that they are part of the process. They think, ‘I made this’”.

It can be an entrance, an opening or some outdoor lightning. The archi-

tects’ impression is that people respond more positively to the result if

they have been part of the process. Not all residents can be part of the

process directly. The architects, however, perceive that those who do

get involved usually channel views that are widely held among a larg-

er population, and that the process produces solutions that work even


for those not directly involved. In this specific case, the original metal

fronts on the balconies, which were painted in varying pastel colours,

were not appreciated by the residents. In the renovation, some façade

panels have been replaced by black boards, and this is repeated through-

out the area. At a larger feedback meeting with the residents following

phase one, the owner recalls that nobody complained about this colour

or wanted it to be made different.

Figure 4

Case D before the renovation (left) and

after (middle and right). The sea-stone

elements are the same, while the sheet-

metal façade elements have been re-

placed with a new board material. New

balcony fronts are in printed glass.



Architect A7 uses on-site observations as a primary tool for gathering

knowledge about the area to be renovated and discussions with a refer-

ence group of residents. They use ordinary methods used by architects,

such as characterisations of buildings together with the identification of

landmarks, pathways etc. as described in work by Alexander, et al. (1977).

The architect further highlights the important of language in communi-

cation with different stakeholders. When communicating with users and

other stakeholders, one must use different, more direct language than

when communicating among architects.

5 DiscussionThe four cases show a selection of approaches when dealing with

sustainable renovation and transformation of public housing.

Sometimes different approaches are used within the same housing area.

It is possible to discern ambitions for holistic design. In all cases, social

and environmental aspects have influenced the renovation strategies.

However, with reference to literature in the field of sustainable renovation

and transformation that emphasises the participation of residents

(Smith, 2006; Turcu, 2012a; Stenberg, 2015), this aspect appears to be weak.

Although the transformation processes are encircled by social activities,

such as job creation or waste recycling, the renovation projects seem

basically driven by technical objectives and energy conservation.

Interesting to note from the perspective of environmental sustainability

is the decision to paint the original robust sea-stone façade in Case B

in order to make it more attractive (Figure 2). After only a few years the

painted façade looks rather sad and the sustainability of the choice

can be questioned. The approach used in Case D is then interesting as a


comparison from aesthetic, historical and environmental perspectives.

Here the original sea-stone façade has been preserved in combination

with the addition of new materials and insulation in other parts of the

façade (Figure 4).

This limited study does not permit us to draw any broad generalisa-

tions. However, some observations have been made regarding the link

between an architect’s influence and a project’s sustainable outcomes.

Cases A and D have both been nominated for prizes, which can be seen

as indicators for the quality of the outcome. In both projects, the archi-

tects seem to have had a larger influence over the process. The archi-

tects’ leadership can be traced back to technical expertise and to trust in

the relationship with the client. In Case A, the architect also successfully

managed to influence the process by bringing in funding from a Euro-

pean demonstration programme. Cases A and D stand out as having a

more developed design strategy. A balance has been sought between the

use of materials resources, energy conservation, social implications and

aesthetics. The renovation strategies in Cases A and D can be defined as

partial renovation compared to the “stripping” strategies (Van Hal, 2008)

used in the energy-efficient projects in Cases B and C. The advantage of

the stripping or deep renovation used in Cases B and C is that large en-

ergy savings can be achieved, but that savings may come with the social

consequences of raised rents as a result of high costs and higher stand-

ards.

5.1 The role and influence of the architect

All the architects in the study perceived their clients as committed. The

interviews reveal an interest in architecture and design among the cli-

ents. In Case B, a design programme was set up for the area. The client in

Case C had an in-house architect. In Case D, the vision for the renovation

helped safeguard the original architecture. Still, the architects felt they

had limited influence over the renovation processes. They often found

themselves disconnected from the projects before the final phases, and

replaced by competitors.

The transformation of a large housing estate is a long process that can

go on for decades. The renovation process is often divided into several

phases because the public owners do not have the financial resources

to make investments for several years forward. In addition, the public

companies have to follow principles for public procurement that limit

their ability to choose their consultants and contractors. For the hous-

ing companies in Cases A and B, which are located in a larger Swedish

city, there are also framework agreements with some consultants that

further limit their selection of architects. These principles have been

put in place in later years and probably did not affect the earlier phases

of Cases A and B. The housing companies that own Cases C and D have

more freedom to choose their consultants but still need to follow public

procurement principles.


As a result of factors that determine the design process, the authority of

the architect to manage sustainable design process (Rekola, Mäkeläinen

and Häkkinen, 2012) seem to be limited. The architects’ potential to deal

with complex issues and whole-system design (Fischer, 2000; Doucet

and Janssens, 2011; Janda, 2011) which could benefit sustainability is not

sufficiently exploited.

Design-build and other alternative contract forms are not discussed in

term of limiting the architect’s influence. In several design-build pro-

jects, in fact, there seems to have been good collaboration. However, new

actors and power balances, as mentioned by Architect A3, will influence

the architect’s leadership in the process. The project leader has taken

over some of the managing role once held by architects.

5.2 Educator of the design team?

The four cases provide some evidence of the emergence of more inte-

grated approaches to design, even if these do not include the end-users.

More integrated approaches, notably with collaboration between the

design and construction phases, are mentioned in relation to pilot proj-

ects – that is, projects with objectives, concepts or technologies that are

new and untested for the clients and other actors.

The architects in our study speak in very positive terms about their expe-

rience of a creative process by which all actors meet together in the early

phases of a project. They especially mention appreciation of the dialogue

with the contractor. Through the integrated approach, the architects felt

like part of a team, which facilitated the communication with the other

actors. The architects express their satisfaction at being able to explain

their views and ideas, which made it easier for them to persuade the con-

tractor to their position and thus influence the outcome of the project.

The possibility for architects to take on a role as “educators of the design

team” in relation to holistic thinking (Janda, 2011) seems to be greater if

the design process is supported from an integrated approach in which

all actors meet and discuss from the early phases. A more integrated

approach can offer a way to overcome problems with communication,

which has been identified as an important barrier for more sustainable

building practices (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). With respect to earlier

studies in which the architect felt overruled by technical and energy-

related arguments (Palm and Reindl, 2016), in the integrated approach in

our study the architects could make their perspectives understood.

Finally, in order to fully support more sustainable renovation, it might

be necessary for the architects to question whether they have the right

knowledge and working methods to deal with sustainable renovation.

The architects in our study seem to rely on rather ordinary architectural

methods to deal with sustainable renovation. They speak warmly about


inventories and the collection of a large body of information before ini-

tiating the design. All but Architect A7 express disappointment at not be-

ing able to work more closely with the tenants. At the same time, several

of the architects seem confident in their own expert views on existing

and new qualities in the housing areas, and they note that direct contact

with the residents can at times disturb the design process.

6 Concluding remarksThis is a time when holistic knowledge is needed to bridge between a

multitude of objectives and perspectives in order to aim for real sustain-

able outcomes in the built environment. Meanwhile, the role and influ-

ence of architect, traditional keeper of the holistic perspective, seems

to be waning. Parallels can be drawn to the situation for professional

planners, though much needed in contemporary urban development,

have lost some of their power as a result of neoliberal planning politics

(Grange, 2017).

Given the emerging new power balances in the design process, and the

increasing variety of procurement routes and framework agreements,

the architectural profession might need to review its practices. New ac-

tors are taking over some of the managerial tasks in the design process

once held by architects. Architects could develop an alternative position

as educators or facilitators of the design team with respect to whole-

systems design. The architects might also explore longer collaborations

or partnering agreements with clients in order to take more responsi-

bility of the whole process. However, in bargaining for more influence

architects might need to revise their expertise and working methods to

better align with sustainable development. The profession should prob-

ably adopt more participatory and collaborative approaches as well,

with greater involvement of end-users and other stakeholders.

Some interesting developments can be noted in architectural practice

that point in these directions. Increasing leadership among architectural

firms has been observed for research and development projects (Hensel

and Nilsson, 2016). Some architects take leadership in participatory

processes involving whole communities (Nonconform, 2012).

Finally, the role of architectural knowledge and the architect in

contemporary renovation projects has only begun to be explored in this

paper, and we call for more research in the field.


AcknowledgementsThe author is deeply grateful to the architects and other actors in

the four case studies for sharing their experiences. The research was

financed through the Swedish Research Council Formas and the project

SIRen – Sustainable Integrated Renovation, a Strong Research Environ-

ment 2014–18.


References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silver-

stein, M., I Ramió, J. R., Jacobson, M.

and Fiksdahl-king, I., 1977. A pattern

language: Towns, buildings con-

struction. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Ástmarsson, B., Jensen, P.A., and

Maslesa, E., 2013. Sustainable reno-

vation of residential buildings and

the landlord/tenant dilemma. Ener-

gy Policy, 63, pp.355–362.

Borelius, U. and Wennerström, U.-B.,

2009. A new Gårdsten: A case study

of a Swedish municipal housing

company. International Journal of

Housing Planning, 9(2), pp.223–239.

Bougrain, F. and Femenías, P., 2014.

Delivering and operating low-ener-

gy buildings in France and Sweden.

In: P. Anker Jensen, ed., Proceedings

from the CIB Facility Management

Conference. Copenhagen, 21-23 May

2014. Lyngby: Polyteknisk forlag.

Bråmå, Å., 2011. Går det att vända

ut vecklingen i utsatta bostadsom-

råden? Exemplet Navestad/Ringdan-

sen i Norrköping. Linköping: Linköp-

ings Universitet, Centrum för

kom munstrategiska studier.

Charnley, F., Lemon, M., and Evans, S.,

2011. Exploring the process of whole

system design. Design Studies, 32(2),

pp.156–179.

Cole, R.J., 2004. Changing context for

environmental knowledge. Building

Research & Information, 32(2), pp.91–

109.

Dainty, A., Cheng, M.I. and Moore, D.,

2005. A comparison of the behavioral

competencies of client-focused and

production-focused project mana-

gers in the construction sector.

Project Management Journal, 36(2),

pp.39−48.

Dewick, P. and Miozzo, M., 2004.

Networks and innovation: sustain-

able technologies in Scottish social

housing. R&D Management, 34(3),

pp.323–333.

Doucet, I. and Janssens, N., eds.,

2011. Transdisciplinary knowledge

production in architecture and ur-

banism: Towards hybrid modes of

inquiry. Doprtrecht: Springer.

Du Plessis, C., 2012. Towards a

regene rative paradigm for the built

environment. Building Research &

Information, 40(1), pp.7–22.

Femenías, P., Gluch, P., och Mjörnell,

K., 2017. Utmaningar vid planering av

hållbar bostadsförnyelse: En studie

av ett miljonprogramsområde. SIRen

Rapport 2017:1. Göteborg: Chalmers

University of Technology.

Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, experts,

and the environment: The politics of

local knowledge. London: Duke Uni-

versity Press.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunder-

standings about case-study resear-

ch. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp.219–

245.

Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M. and Thu-

vander, L., 2009. An absorptive

capaci ty model for green innovation

and performance in the construc-

tion industry. Journal of Construc-

tion Management and Economics,

27(5), pp.451–464.

Grange, K., 2017. Planners – a silen-

ced profession? The politicisation

of planning and the need for fear-

less speech. Planning Theory, 16(3),

pp.275–295.

Häkkinen, T. and Belloni, K., 2011.

Barriers and drivers for sustainable

building. Building Research and In-

formation, 39(3), pp.239–255.

Hensel, M.U. and Nilsson, F., 2016. The

changing shape of practice: Integrat-

ing research and design in architec-

ture. London: Routledge.

Janda, K.B., 2011. Buildings don’t use

energy: people do. Architectural sci-

ence review, 54(1), pp.15–22.

Kaatz, E., Root, D. and Bowen, P.,

2005. Broadening project participa-

tion through a modified building

sustainability assessment. Build-

ing Research & Information, 33(5),

pp.441–454.

Kadefors, A., 1997. Beställar-entre-

prenörrelationer i byggandet: samar-

bete, konflikt och social påverkan.

Dissertation, Chalmers University of

Technology.

Kylili, A., Fokaides, P.A. and Lopez

Jimenez, P.A., 2016. Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) approach in build-

ings renovation for the sustainabili-

ty of the built environment: A review.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 56, pp.906–915.

Lind, H. and Lundström, S., 2008. Af-

fären Gårdsten − Har förnyelsen av

Gårdsten varit lönsam? Stockholm:

Royal Institute of Technology, De-

partment of Property and Building.

Mangold, M., Österbring, M., Wall-

baum, H., Thuvander, L. and Fe-

menías, P., 2016. Socio-economic

impact of renovation and energy

retrofitting of the Gothenburg build-

ing stock. Energy and Buildings, 123,

pp.41–49.

Marthur, V.N., Price, A.D F. and Aus-

tin, S., 2008. Conceptualizing stake-

holder engagement in the context

of sustainability and its assessment.

Construction Management and


Economics, 26(6), pp.601–609.

Mills, F.T. and Glass, J., 2009. The con-

struction design manager’s role in

delivering sustainable buildings. Ar-

chitectural Engineering and Design

Management, 5(1–2), pp.75–90.

Molina, I. and Westin, S., 2012. Re-

noviction − even in Sweden? Four

case studies on the regeneration of

public housing estates. Presentation

at AAG Annual Meeting of the Associ-

ation of American Geographers, New

York, 24-29 February 2012. [online]

Available at: <http://www.academia.

edu/11939817/Renoviction_Even_

in_Sweden._An_Effect_of_Com-

mon_Benefit_Companies_Acting_

Business-like_>.

Nielsen, A.N., Jensen, R.L., Larsen, T.S.

and Nissen, S.B., 2016. Early stage de-

cision support for sustainable build-

ing renovation – A review. Building

and Environment, 103, pp.165–181.

NONCONFORM, 2012. Neue Wege der

Gemeindeentwicklung Fließ / Tirol.

[online] Available at: <https://www.

nonconform.at/sites/default/files/

presse/attachments/fliess.pdf>.

Palm, J. and Reindl, K., 2016. Under-

standing energy efficiency in Swed-

ish residential building renovation:

A practice theory approach. Ener-

gy Research & Social Science, 11,

pp.247–255.

Rekola, M., Mäkeläinen, T. and Häk-

kinen, T., 2012. The role of design

management in the sustainable

building process. Architectural Engi-

neering and Design Management,

8(2), pp.78–89.

Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2013.

A critical review of seven selected

neighborhood sustainability assess-

ment tools. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 38, pp.73–87.

Smith, R., 2006. Housing stock trans-

fer: Investing in renewal as a tool for

sustainable regeneration. Housing

Studies, 21(2), pp.269–282.

Sovacool, B.K., Ryan, S.E., Stern, P.C.,

Janda, K., Rochlin, G., Spreng, D., Pas-

qualetti, M.J., Wilhite, H. and Lutzen-

hiser, L., 2015. Integrating social

science in energy research. Energy

Research & Social Science, 6, pp.95–

99.

Stanislas, N., Gavin, K. and Janda, K.B.,

2011. Building expertise: A system of

professions approach to low-carbon

refurbishment in the UK and France.

ECEEE 2011 Summer School Energy

Efficiency First.

Stenberg, J., 2015. Medskapande

reno vering. In: K. Mjörnell and H.

Lins, eds. 2015. Social hållbarhet med

fokus på bostadsrenovering – en an-

tologi. SIRen rapport 2015:4. Lund:

Sustainable Integrated Renovation.

pp.77–88.

Stenberg, J., Thuvander, L. and Fe-

menÍas, P., 2009. Linking social and

environmental aspects: A multidi-

mensional evaluation of refurbish-

ment projects. Local Environment,

14(6), pp.541–556.

Thuvander, L., FemenÍas, P. and

Brunkluas, B., 2017. Future challeng-

es for renovation as experienced

by Swedish housing companies. In-

ternational World Sustainable Built

Environment Conference 2017. Hong

Kong 5–7 June 2017.

Thuvander, L., FemenÍas, P. and Meil-

ing, P., 2011. Strategies for an inte-

grated sustainable renovation pro-

cess: Focus on the Swedish housing

stock ‘People’s Home’. International

Sustainable Building Conference 18–

21 October 2011. Helsinki, Finland.

Thuvander, L., FemenÍas, P., Mjörnell,

K. and Meiling, P., 2012. Unveiling the

process of sustainable renovation.

Sustainability, 4, pp.1188–1213.

Turcu, C., 2012a. Local experiences

of urban sustainability: Researching

housing market renewal interven-

tions in three English neighbour-

hoods. Progress in Planning, 78(3),

pp.101–150.

Turcu, C., 2012b. Re-thinking sustain-

ability indicators: local perspectives

of urban sustainability. Journal of

Environmental Planning and Man-

agement, 56(5), pp.695–719.

Tzortzopoulos, P. and Cooper, R.,

2007. Design management from a

contractor’s perspective: The need

for clarity. Architectural Engineer-

ing and Design Management, 3(1),

pp.17–28.

Van Hal, A., 2008. Challenging and

valuable. Speech for Professor in-

stallation in Housing Transforma-

tion at the Faculty of Architecture.

Delft: Delft University of Technology.

Wahl, D.C. and Baxter, S., 2008. The de-

signer’s role in facilitating sustaina-

ble solutions. Design Issues, 24(2),

pp.72–83.

WCED (World Commission on Envi-

ronment and Development), 1987.

Our common future. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.


Biographical information

Paula Femenías

Associate Professor in the Division

of Building Design, Department of

Architecture and Civil Engineering,

at Chalmers University of Techno-

logy

Address: Sven Hultins gata 8,

S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden

Phone: +46 (0)31 772 24 58

E-mail: [email protected]

Femenías researches sustainable transformation of the built environment

focusing on the link between architectural design and environmental and

social aspects of sustainability. She is engaged in inter-disciplinary and

transdisciplinary research, often in collaboration with industry. Femenías

is part of the strong research environment for Sustainable Integrated

Reno vation, SIRen, linked to the National Renovation Centre, and the new-

ly established Centre for Residential Studies at Chalmers.

PHOTO KRISTIN LIDELL

The Role of the Architect in Sustainable Housing ...ISS 1 2019 THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT IN...

Documents

Transcript of The Role of the Architect in Sustainable Housing ...ISS 1 2019 THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT IN...